Looks-Money-Status: Has the Game Changed?

On my article about your opinions of women betraying your success (or lack thereof) with women, a reader writes

Hey Chase,

It seems recently that everyone that’s red pill or whatever pill online, is saying that LMS is extremely popular now because women have so many options because of social media and dating apps.

There’s men spending money on women just because and there’s men giving free attention just because. Then you have men who are popular online and have money or look like they have money, so those men are apart of those options too.

Today it seems men say you have to have an outstanding social media profile with money to compete today. Of course you need game, but they say this extremely important as well.

I was just curious if you noticed people saying this online, if you feel the game has changed that much, and what you feel is the best method to get women today?

Thanks

I should note before I begin we had an article earlier in the year by Alek Rolstad on looks-money-status. You may want to check that one out for a more concise response.

I'm afraid my article is going to take a long walk through the weeds.

So here's Alek's more concise reply:

READ MORE: Looks-Money-Status: Are They the Key to Dating Success?

On with the article, and all its ensuing tangents...

This "how's the game changing? Is it becoming all about looks-money-status?" question is a question I've found myself dealing with more over the years. I've written a variety of articles on looks, which I'll link for you below, as well as some on status and some on wealth.

This site was one of the first seduction sites online that pushed the importance of appearance and perceived status. I have been telling men since 2008 that personal appearance and the way you communicate status have an impact in seduction. My 2011 book, first published before most people had ever heard of Girls Chase, has an entire huge section devoted to appearance and status (called 'Fundamentals'). One of my most popular early concepts was the Law of Least Effort, which is entirely about how high status one appears in social situations.

Of late we have been having more men who are 'purists' coming on to argue that the only thing that matters is [X] thing. Where X = looks, or money, or status, or some other thing (be that height, race, what have you).

There've always been these purists. Actually when I started the site I was mainly concerned with game purists, who argued you could have a terrible, slovenly appearance and act like a street bum yet still get laid with super models via game alone (I should note that was never the position of most top guys in the seduction community. Even Neil Strauss's book The Game has a section talking about steps Neil took to dramatically improve his appearance). But looks and status purists existed then too.

With the rise of the red pill and manosphere communities, plus other things like (*shudder*) looks maxxing, we have seen an influx of these black-and-white thinker LMS purists. They pour on here arguing with us as if we're game purists (I have also argued with the game purists), arguing instead for the preeminence of their favorite attraction factor above all others.

That said... the dating landscape has changed, has it not? I posted some charts and graphs about how things changed in my article on 21st Century men's rising levels of dating apathy. Check that piece out if you want to see specific data on changes that've taken place.

When you see a sudden surge in people all claiming something similar, and it coincides with significant changes in how people are actually dating, it does have to raise the question:

Has something actually changed? And if so, what?

 

Back in the Good Old Days...

Game changes over the years in some ways.

In other ways it very much does not.

If you compare game today to game from 70 years ago, or longer, you might expect it to be completely different.

And in some ways it was. But it was not quite so different as you might think.

A few months back I reviewed the film The Moon Is Blue. The movie revolves around a man who picks a girl up off the street (i.e., he's running day game). He venue changes her a bit, then brings her to his home to seduce her. While there, his neighbor stumbles by and tries to steal her away. The girl plays both sides a bit, and ends up getting the men competing for her.

Sounds a lot like modern dating and seduction, right?

The movie's from 70 years ago.

READ MORE: Film Review: The Moon Is Blue (1953)

Honestly, before I watched that film I sort of thought "The game must have been very different in the 1950s."

I'd read newspaper interviews with women who'd been picked up in American cities and were in casual sexual relationships dating from the 1910s, when researching for my book on the history of relationships (long since shelved, most likely for good).

I knew my maternal grandmother was flirting with men in bars and hooking up in the late 1940s. She told the story to me herself.

I've read a lot of other history too. In fact, I'm reading Exemplary Women, a 2000-year-old Chinese collection of biographies of various morally upright vs. morally depraved women, and there are multiple pick up attempts detailed throughout the book.

At one point, a Chinese official on his way home after five years away in a distant city stops his wagon to try to pick up a woman he sees picking mulberries.

She turns him down, saying she's married... well, it turns out to be his wife, whom he didn't recognize; she also didn't recognize him... tragedy promptly ensues once they realize who's whom and she discovers her husband is a lothario. Presumably this was not the husband's first pickup attempt, his having lived away from his wife five years and coming across like an old pro when he made this last pass at her.

There is this weird pattern among humans that you don't realize until you've read a lot of history where each generation experiences things for the first time, and comes up with conclusions about these things where it believes that things must be radically different from how they were for previous generations, since of course the new generation hasn't experienced life as a previous generation, even though in actual fact it's almost entirely identical from generation to generation.

People from your generation start dating, and they think it must be more passionate, or sexual, or dramatic than it was for generations past.

People of your generation get married, or get jobs, or have children, and they start saying, "Wow, I can't believe this really happened to me! I never thought I'd become a grown-up with a job and a marriage and kids!"

Even though this stuff keeps happening, over and over, endlessly, for every generation it is surprising. And every generation is full of people who assumes it must be different for its generation compared to all previous generations.

The more you study history, the more you realize this thinking is wrong.

There are changes to the environment people live in over time.

No one can argue with the fact that American Baby Boomers lived during the peak of the American economy, and could pay their way through college with a part-time minimum wage job, then buy a house a few years after graduation.

And no one could argue that, meanwhile, decades later, the American economy has dramatically declined in real terms (even as stock market numbers and GDP numbers keep inflating)... and American Millennials can work full-time jobs through college and barely put a dent in their student loans, while many of them are still living with their parents or stuck renting into their 30s because housing prices are so out-of-reach for them.

I have lived in thriving countries with very low crime that nevertheless have bars on their windows and barbed wire and shredded glass sticking out of tar atop apartment complex walls, left over from the days just a few decades ago when the economy was no good and crime, now almost non-existent, was then rampant.

Likewise, there are other countries headed in the opposite direction; places that do not have bars on windows or barbed wire atop walls, but may start adding those in the not-so-distant future as their economies continue to crumble, and increasingly desperate people turn to increasingly criminal ways to make ends meet.

Yet, as societies change, our sex organs do not, the hormones coursing through our bodies do not, and the human reproductive cycle and means of assessing and evaluating mates does not.

The selection criteria for mates changes some, with women seeking wealth and security more as economic independence gets harder to achieve, and women seeking love, excitement, and appearances more as economic independence gets easier; but these changes tend to be inflated by men who focus on them, and made all-important, when the real change occurring is simply a matter of degree (and, typically, fairly slight, gradual degree).

 

The Rise of the Sterile Libertine

Recently some guy guessed my email and sent me a long email about how appalled he was about the immorality of the star of the California Pimp video series Ricardus wrote about a decade back. He wanted to know if Girls Chase supported California Pimp morality and wanted me to send his long, probing email to Ricardus for a response.

Ricardus hasn't been involved with the site in almost a decade; he's lately taken his screen time down to an absolute bare minimum (he threw away his smart phone, uses only a dumb phone, and gets on his computer a few hours a day maximum); and he spends most of his time now just socializing with real people in real life, going to parties, meeting new friends, and chatting up women in the flesh.

So I don't think he wants to be getting some guy's weirdly prudish email about a porn series he wrote about in 2012.

However, I read the guy's email... and I found its morality unsettlingly bizarre.

First off, the guy starts talking about how excited he was by the method California Pimp used to get these girls to have sex. So obviously this emailer had no issue with the casual sex.

Then he says he realized California Pimp wasn't using a condom with these girls he was nailing, and they were telling him to cum in them, or he was encouraging them to say that and they'd say it, and then he'd ejaculate into them raw.

The guy writing this email found this ejaculation of semen into women's vaginas incredibly appalling, and sort of suggested we should be ashamed of ourselves for even mentioning such a horrific, morally bankrupt act.

Part of his fear was around STDs. Which, if you know much about STDs, you know you can't prevent skin-transmitted ones with condoms (I know guys who've acquired genital herpes despite being incredibly strict with their condom usage and never having sex without a rubber), and the fluid-based ones, while unpleasant, are curable with antibiotics.

But the lion's share of his outrage seemed to be around the risk of reproduction that occurred with this sex. In this email writer's message, this seemed to be what he considered the most egregious offense (the risk that one of these women might bear young to California Pimp. A brood of little bastard pimps running around California, I suppose -- based on this emailer's repeated requests that I forward his email to Ricardus, I assume he stays up late at night mortified by the prospect).

There's this weird kind of sterile libertine-lite morality I've noticed popping up everywhere in Western sex thought, that goes something like this:

• Casual sex is fine and good

• Casual sex with any chance of impregnation is bad and immoral

• Reproduction must be tightly controlled

• Reproduction itself is a moral gray area (overpopulation beliefs, global warming beliefs, "how could you bring a new life into this horrible world?" anti-natalist beliefs, "I'd never want to stop this fun ride that is being responsibility-free" beliefs, "I'd be a terrible parent" beliefs, etc.)

They're not true libertines, because they have morals. They're just weird morals.

Throughout most of human history, in most human society, reproduction has been considered an extremely desirable, extremely morally good thing.

Leaders of both states and religions have classically encouraged reproduction, sometimes going to extremes to do so, such as honoring families that reach a certain size, or rewarding them with more land, a reprieve from taxes for N years (or forever), and so on.

In ancient Sumeria, a man was barred from entering heaven if he had fewer than four children. To reach the highest level of heaven he had to sire at least eight.

So I will say I personally have always found the modern 'sterile libertine' morality odd.

I get that it serves a social purpose; sexy guys going around impregnating women willy-nilly does not a stable society make.

However, I think this sterile libertine worldview leads to unnatural thinking about women and sex, and it leads men to have unrealistic expectations about women.

Namely, because they start to think of women as non-reproductive pleasure vehicles, they begin to feel a certain entitlement toward women. They come to resent women who reject them, and concoct a bunch of cynical reasons why that is, which are largely based around this idea of women trading one type of pleasure for another.

Because of course, if sex is consequence-free (no risk of STDs; no chance you're going to impregnate her; just pure fun with no purpose other than getting your rocks off) why wouldn't women be more generous with that, and less selective?

This 'sterile libertine' understanding of sex, which not every guy fully holds but that has enough sway over mainstream culture that it kind of creeps into a lot of guys' perceptions of sex, also influences thinking about sex in other ways.

Men assume that women seek to trade sex (i.e., pleasure) for other things that they want for their own personal pleasure or purposes:

• A good-looking man is pleasurable due to his aesthetic looks

• A wealthy man is pleasurable due to the things he owns and can buy

• A high-status man is pleasurable due to the status he confers and the social opportunities he creates

And so on and so forth.

Men assume that unless they have something sufficiently pleasurable to offer women, they cannot get sex.

Another example of this thinking is the term 'clown game', something I've seen on red pill / manopshere sites. According to the 'clown game' theory, men who get laid via game do so by "behaving like clowns", coming up with entertaining stories and jokes to keep women engaged until those women ultimately reward their entertaining performance with sex.

This whole worldview hinges on this view of sex as a sterile, meaningless act whose sole end is momentary physical pleasure.

However, because this understanding of sex is wrong, the conclusions of men who view sex this way are also wrong.

They adopt strange moralities and fail to understand what actually drives women to sex.

While there are women who are out fucking purely for pleasure, this is not what drives most of the sex happening. Not most of the casual sex, and not most in-relationship sex.

Instead, most women are looking for something different from what the sterile libertine thinks they are.

 

What Women Are Looking for with Sex

Keep this in mind about sex for women:

A lot of men are bad in bed. A lot of men are selfish lovers, or they can't get it up, or can't keep it up, or cum too quick. The average duration of penis-in-vagina sex in the United States and Europe is 5.4 minutes. It takes longer than that to make a woman cum from sex, generally... even if she's excited.

Men engage in sex for pleasure because pleasure is more or less guaranteed for men when they have sex. As a guy, you're going to get off. Pleasure is not guaranteed for women when they have sex, and many sexual experiences, even with seemingly attractive men, are disappointing or even damaging.

Many girls you will talk to, if you get them to be candid, can share with you some experience they had of hooking up with a guy just because he was good-looking, or rich, or some other attractive archetype, only for it to be an incredibly disappointing experience. The guy came quick and/or made them feel worthless afterwards. A lot of the time it was the first and last time they did something like that, just because the guy was standout in some way.

Women are horny. They want sex. But they want it with the right man, and they are not generally running around seeking a quick injection of pleasure the way the sterile libertines think they are.

What are women looking for when they think about sex?

They are looking for release. Or they are looking for acceptance. Or they are looking for revenge. Or they are looking for reproduction... not always consciously, but a lot of the sex that happens, even the casual sex, is motivated by reproductive motivations.

Get attractive enough with women, and most of the women you sleep with will want you to go raw, and most of them will want you, even tell you unprompted, to cum in them. Some may outright beg you to impregnate them mid-act.

But here's the most important part: they are looking for these things with men they judge can really provide them.

If a man is really good-looking, or rich, does that assure a woman he can give her a release, or make her feel accepted, or be worth reproducing with?

No, it does not.

Superficial characteristics do not guarantee he'll be able to physically and emotionally satisfy her.

They are also not a good marker of reproductive quality. Sure, there might be someone out there where the only thing that person cares about for reproduction is looks, or bank account zeroes, but out here in the real world looks and bank zeroes end up being just small parts of a huge package of things we look for in mates.

By the way, I promised you a list of articles on looks earlier, so here's that list:

• How Much Do Looks Matter for Romantic Success? I examine some of the science around physical attraction and casual sex. The findings: the most important aspect of looks when it comes to casual sex is how physically dominant a man's looks make him out to be.

• “I Can’t Get Girls Because Girls Only Want [BLANK]” An allegory on how silly looks-wealth-height-race purism becomes when it comes to picking up girls.

• Is She Too Hot? Well, Looks are Subjective We show how men's tastes in women are very, very subjective... and the same is true for women's tastes in men.

• How to Tell a Girl Who's Beautiful from One Who's Made Up Women's looks are incredibly plastic. If you're a looks-focused guy, I can almost guarantee you are obsessed with girls whose looks are entirely constructed of hair dye, makeup, gym, and breast implants, meanwhile complaining about your own lack of genetic good looks.

• "Girls Only Want Good-Looking Guys or Young Guys" We take a break from serious articles on the subject to point out with a bunch of glaring examples how ridiculous an obsessive focus on looks ends up being.

• Do You Need Good Looks to Get Laid? Alek Rolstad discusses how looks help, and also why they aren't the be-all, end-all of sexual success.

• 10 Dumb Myths About Women Newbie Seducers Often Believe I break down things men think about how women pick mates that are either gross exaggerations or else flat-out wrong.

And here're the ultimate nail-in-the-coffin pieces for all of looks-, wealth-, and status-supremacists... if you want to argue in favor of looks, status, or wealth being supreme, you must explain away the case studies of the world's wealthiest, handsomest, and highest status men from these two articles:

READ MORE: Why Men Lose Women: It's Not Hypergamy – It's Something Else

READ MORE: How to Disprove the "Looks Are the Pillar of Attraction" Ideology

Women aren't looking for what most men think they're looking for.

It's why most men are so bad at sleeping with women... even if those men happen to be good-looking, rich, tall, or high status.

The average man is totally mystified about women (just as the average woman is mystified about men) and tends to form his opinions about women by projection ("I like looks so women like looks") and from pop culture memes ("Rock stars fuck a lot of groupies so really it's all about status").

Of course, projection tells you more about yourself than it tells you about another person... and pop culture memes generally just tell you some small slice of something stupid about someone irrelevant.

If you're basing your worldviews off this stuff, your mental models are hopelessly flawed.

What should you base mental models off of?

What people actually do, and, to a lesser extent, what they can tell you about themselves (after you've run it through your BS filter, of course).

 

Women's Actual Dating & Sex Behavior

What do you observe in your actual real life?

Now, the first thing to be wary of here is confirmation bias... and its close cousin, selection bias.

Recently I had a girl tell me about how she'd just started reading about Tesla vehicles, then started noticing Teslas everywhere. I was driving around with her and had to keep listening to her going, "Look, it's a Tesla! Oh my God another Tesla!"

I'm not even sure how she recognized them. I've never been much good at telling, say, a Hyundai from a Ford. Half the time when she'd excitedly spot a Tesla and try and point it out to me in a crowded city street I'd have no idea which car she was talking about.

If you are looking for good-looking man good-looking woman couples, you will tend to see them everywhere. And then the ones where the man isn't good-looking, you will assume he's high status or rich (or you'll just have blinders on to those guys and not notice them).

There's a funny thing with this with other biases, too.

I don't subscribe to the looks-money-status ideology so popular in various online circles nowadays.

I think those things are attractive and can help a man's odds with women. I don't think they're ultimate attraction signals or anything like that though.

I never used to pay attention to those things at ALL, but after years of these LMS guys popping out of the woodwork yelling about "looks money status!" I have noticed that everywhere I go I see beautiful women with overweight, unattractive-looking guys who aren't dressed well and don't appear to be rich or high status.

I see it in every large American city, and I see it in countries, developed and undeveloped, all across the Earth.

The LMS guys have sort of reverse-psychology trained me to notice exceptions to their ideology absolutely everywhere.

I also see trim, stylish-looking men with overweight and unattractive women.

And then too of course I see couples where both man and woman are attractive, and both are unattractive.

Are most people fairly closely matched in looks, wealth, and status?

Probably, I would guess?

However, keep this in mind (you'll recognize this if you have my Charisma in a Bottle course): propinquity governs all.

Good-looking people mostly hang out with other good-looking people.

Rich people mostly hang out with other rich people.

High status people mostly hang out with other high status people.

And whom do people date?

Mostly, it is people they hang out with.

Most men aren't cold approaching, and most women aren't getting cold approached.

People sort themselves into groups, then date from within those groups.

If you can enter their groups, you can date them too.

Or if you can successfully cold approach them, despite not being in their groups, you can date them.

Women date the men they have available within their lives. And they seek out and join groups of people (men and women) that are generally within their 'level'.

A woman who is attractive but low status will join a group of attractive low status people. Or if she is upwardly mobile with regard to status, she might trade looks for status and join a group of unattractive higher status people. I've seen both things quite a bit, though the latter less than the former (most people stick to their own. But some are ambitious).

You can either find a way into her group, or you can cold approach.

Now, when you cold approach, positive assortative mating applies too.

Therefore, you're most likely to succeed with women who are similar to you.

Thus, if you want better looking women, upgrade your looks, and good-looking women become easier to get.

If you want wealthier women, upgrade your wealth, and wealthier women become easier to get.

If you want higher status women, upgrade your status, and higher status women become easier to get.

Can you still get these women without upgrading yourself?

Yes, but it is harder.

Most of what you see in the LMS communities online are men complaining about wanting these women but these women not wanting them because they aren't willing to make the upgrades. The whining is a cop-out to just blame everyone else ("It's women's fault for being too picky! It's PUA sites' fault for tricking men into thinking you can get any girl with the right lines! It's dating apps' fault for making men think you can get hot girls just by swiping!"), and avoid taking any action themselves.

I mean, I'll tell you what -- if I was an LMS guy, what would I have to complain about?

I'd just be out there networking furiously, raising my status, climbing ruthlessly to the top of the corporate ranks, accumulating wealth, and hitting the gym daily, sculpting my body, while visiting my fashion hair stylist and getting the most exquisite clothes I could to look my absolute best.

And I would have nothing to complain about. After a few years of that, gorgeous rich high status babes would be falling into my lap. Or if the theory held they would, anyway.

(I've done well with good-looking women, who in general are fairly abundant, and I've done reasonably well with high status women, who in general are somewhat less abundant. I haven't really bedded many rich women, so far as I know, but I've also not really ever inquired much into the wealth of women I've bedded. Maybe there are some heiresses in there I didn't realize were heiresses, who knows. But I've never sought out or pursued wealthy women. I had a friend who did, who was a high school dropout, so clearly not from their wealth class, but he still had some very wealthy girlfriends regardless)

Truth be told, I'm not opposed to any of that stuff, and I recommend any of it you can stomach. Getting in shape is great. Getting good fashion and a stylish hairstyle is great. Getting sexy facial hair is great. Building your career and getting paid is great. Developing your network and building status is great. All these things will help you to some degree or other with women, too.

The biggest way they help is with your confidence.

The thing is... women are not picking men based on superficial characteristics.

Superficial characteristics help get a man's foot in the door. Whether the door then closes on his foot, or the girl pushes it wide open, depends on more.

Women are looking for qualities that communicate a man will be reliable for:

• Making them feel renewed, refreshed, reinvigorated, and accepted
• Making them feel slutty, horny, aroused, sexually satisfied, and sexually liberated
• Impregnating them with superior seed

Not all those things, all the time, but usually if a woman is hooking up with a man she wants one of them.

She is not going out thinking, "Boy, I really need to get my ovaries off. I hope there's a rich boy with male model looks and a 9" cock who'll take me home tonight," the way a man might think about women.

The whole sterile libertine worldview of women is off-base, and it leads to this off-base understanding of why women have sex and what they want it for.

They aren't choosing it for the reasons men choose it.

They are choosing it for the reasons women do.

 

The Role of Screens in the Rise of the Sterile Libertine

The sterile libertine is much the product of screens and screeds.

The screens part of his formation comes from dating apps and pornography.

The screeds part of his formation comes from feminist schoolmarms.

First off, the screens: sterile libertines have consumed pornography all their lives.

In pornography, muscular good-looking men with large penises have non-reproductive sex with woman after woman after woman. Men become voyeurs watching these other men copulate and unconsciously come to view this as the norm ("women want well-endowed men with muscles and good-looks. Many women will have rapid casual sex with such men").

The advent of dating apps really switched this thinking into overdrive. On dating apps, women ruthlessly swipe based on looks. They can do so because 1.) looks are the only semi-reliable attraction factor offered on apps (everything else is easily faked), and 2.) there are way, WAY more men on dating apps than women (Tinder is over 3/4 men), and of those women who are on dating apps, only a fraction of them are interested in sex (many simply use apps for validation).

So, on apps, women are scarce, so get to be very picky choosers, and the only even remotely reliable signal of a man's potential quality there is looks.

As such, women become extremely choosy about men, using looks as the vehicle for their choosiness.

Sadly, a lot of men meet women on apps these days, which means these men are getting chosen (or ignored) on the basis of looks. In these men's realities, looks really ARE all women care about.

Kind of messed up for those dudes -- but, also, no one forced them to get on apps... so what can you do?

On the screeds portion of things, you have feminist schoolmarms on TV, in movies, and all over the Internet talking about how women need to be free from accountability and it's men's duty to do everything for women and ask nothing in return. "Do not ask what women can do for you; ask what you can do for women," is the Internet feminist's motto.

Yet the thing is, as we've talked about on Girls Chase before, these outspoken feminists do not represent ordinary women. Just check out the Swedish study titled "Feminist activist women are masculinized in terms of digit-ratio and social dominance: a possible explanation for the feminist paradox":

The feminist movement purports to improve conditions for women, and yet only a minority of women in modern societies self-identify as feminists. This is known as the feminist paradox. It has been suggested that feminists exhibit both physiological and psychological characteristics associated with heightened masculinization, which may predispose women for heightened competitiveness, sex-atypical behaviors, and belief in the interchangeability of sex roles. If feminist activists, i.e., those that manufacture the public image of feminism, are indeed masculinized relative to women in general, this might explain why the views and preferences of these two groups are at variance with each other. We measured the 2D:4D digit ratios (collected from both hands) and a personality trait known as dominance (measured with the Directiveness scale) in a sample of women attending a feminist conference. The sample exhibited significantly more masculine 2D:4D and higher dominance ratings than comparison samples representative of women in general, and these variables were furthermore positively correlated for both hands. The feminist paradox might thus to some extent be explained by biological differences between women in general and the activist women who formulate the feminist agenda.

Basically, what an ordinary woman wants, and what a more biologically masculinized feminist woman wants, are very different, because there's a lot more neonatal testosterone exposure in feminists, and their bodies (and likely brains) are significantly more masculinized.

You have this entire weird morality created by feminists that says women should be allowed to have free sex and freedom from accountability, and it is the duty of men to be walking cocks, but never to impregnate a woman, unless and until a woman decides she is ready, and perhaps not even then, since pregnancy would get in the way of her career, which is a necessary part of her feminist expression, and also women don't need anything from men, certainly not acceptance or permission... the only thing a woman actually needs a man for is that meat-rod between his legs.

Feminists talk about women's sexual liberation in a way that makes sex out to be this purely physical thing. And, indeed, if you ever hook up with a hardcore feminist, you will find these tend to be some of the most man-like women in terms of their motivations for sex -- they actually will pursue sex purely for pleasure.

But then they go around writing articles all over the Internet about this and making it sound like this is true for most women, even though they are just a very loud vocal minority (serving as a sort of self-nominated group of 'leaders of the women').

Men pick up this morality feminists are putting out there and tell themselves "I am just a walking meat stick to women" and then go out trying to pick up women for pleasure sex, only to get shot down, because they're meeting ordinary women who aren't masculinized feminists, who have motivations for sex beyond 'fucking for pleasure', and then they get upset. They start trying to figure out why they get rejected for a pleasure-fuck, when all women want are these big walking cocks... and what they conclude is it must be 'looks-money-status'.

They aren't thinking of women as ordinary women, with these needy feelings about wanting to be accepted and validated by the right kind of man, about wanting to be made to feel sexual and allowed and satisfied by the right kind of man, about wanting to be impregnated by the right kind of man.

I've never heard a looks-money-status guy say, "She's just looking for a good-looking man to make her feel whole again," or, "She's longing for a rich man to come along and make her feel allowed to be sexual," or, "She wants nothing but for a high status man to pick her out of the crowd and impregnate her."

Ascribing true average female mating motivations to these weird, polarized looks-money-status beliefs sounds bizarre because the LMS guys aren't operating under an actual understanding of female mate selection behavior.

They are operating under the porn and app and feminist created moral framework / worldview of the sterile libertine.

 

The Game Has Changed... and It Hasn't

The game really has changed, for one group, and one group only:

Men on dating apps.

If you were on Tinder in 2015, the audience was 50/50 men/women (or it might've been 60/40 men/women by that point already; I forget. It was 50/50 when Tinder premiered).

When we launched Colt's Sleep with Girls on Tinder System (now discontinued) in early 2015, it was genuinely a golden time to get on there and match with attractive girls who were curious about the app and down for a hookup.

Each year since the ratio on there has gotten worse, and worse, and women on the app have gotten pickier, and pickier, and looks is the only thing they really have to go off of there, so they do.

Yet each passing year, more and more men have flooded onto dating apps, abandoning the bars, abandoning the clubs, experiencing a chilling effect around workplace dating due to #MeToo, and with the general decline in socializing and rise in smart phone screen addiction.

It really is the case for men on screens that the ONLY thing women care about is looks, and, to the extent they can be displayed through Tinder pics and Instagram photos, money and status.

Out here in the real world though, for us non-app scoundrels, the world remains the same.

If you're among the increasingly rare group of rapscallions who meet women in the flesh, instead of on apps, the game hasn't changed.

In many ways, it's gotten easier. There's less competition from men, most of whom are hiding behind screens now. Your male competitors have grown fearful, and often largely invisible.

Those guys spamming her Instagram DMs don't have a shot with her at all, but they think they do, they hope they do, and when she starts dating you they'll claim it's because you're better looking than they are, if you seem to be or you take photogenic pictures, or that she must be dating you because you're rich, or you must have some secret social status they don't know about.

The truth is the game has changed a lot, for men who migrated their 'game' to smart phone apps.

For men who steered clear of that miasma, well, the game's the same it's always been.

Looks, money, and status play a role. That role is important, but it's not the cornerstone, nor is it insurmountable if you lack those things.

Game, to that extent, is the same as it was in 2006, and the same as it was in 1953.

It's the same as it was in ancient China, thousands of years ago, when that naughty official tried to pick up his own wife (unknowingly) under a mulberry tree.

Most of the added complexity in dating has come from the move to the cities and, more recently, the skittishness of some women to being approached (especially outside normal approach venues, like nightlife) and seduced (especially if they are drunk).

Things have gotten more complex, but not in any of the ways the looks-money-status guys talk about. At least not offline.

If you'd like to join us out here in the free world, where people are rich and complex, and have many traits besides their facial features, bank account zeroes, and Instagram followers, there's a simple solution to it:

• Delete your porn and quit jerking it to videos of other people nailing

• Delete your dating apps and start meeting women in the flesh

• Delete your social media (hey look, I wrote that article about getting off social media in 2012. It's 9 years later. Are you still on it?) and stick to talking to people via email and messages

• Finally, stop reading political/cultural critique written by women. Especially feminist women. Don't even read stuff written by men complaining about stuff written by women. Because you are still reading the stuff written by women indirectly -- either clips of it or these men paraphrasing it -- plus you are also consuming all the bitching those men are doing about the bitching the women are doing (and let me tell you, that's a whole heckuva lot of bitching)

A week in, you're going to feel like you're living in a different world.

Two weeks in, you're going to start feeling those old looks-money-status and sterile libertine worldviews fading away.

A month in and you'll view the world in a completely different way:

The real way, and not the bizarro upside-down screen-influenced way people trapped inside the Matrix do.

To your liberation,

Chase Amante